Search form

Stock Losses

The complaint for this class action alleges that Ryan R. Gilbertson and Michael L. Reger founded Dakota Plains Holdings in order to run a stock manipulation scheme. The two made all important decisions concerning the company, the complaint said, yet hid the extent of their ownership as well as their roles and their stock manipulation and other schemes that took advantage of the company. The extensive deceits were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the complaint claims.

The complaint for this securities class action alleges that Universal Health Services, Inc. (UHS) “manipulated and fabricated” patient intake assessments, including labeling some patients as suicidal when they were not, in order to make money from their insurance policies. It also claims they were held longer than was medically necessary, in order to make more money from their insurance policies. The complaint claims that the company inflated its stock price by this scheme and did not disclose it to investors, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

When Rent-A-Center, Inc. (RAC) began rolling out its new point-of-sale (POS) computer system in late 2014, it had significant problems and was already outdated, claim confidential witnesses. The complaint for this class action claims that the company knew of problems but did tell investors because it did not want to take a write-down on the system. This was a violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the complaint says, and came to light only as the system affected sales for several quarters in a row.

Endologix, Inc. makes medical devices to treat aortic aneurysms, which can become fatal if not treated properly. When the class period began for this action began, Endologix’s Nellix device had been in use in Europe for three years, and the company claimed the results there were good. But the complaint claims that Nellix had a serious problem: It migrated within the body. The complaint claims that the failure of the company to disclose this, and its optimistic statements about when it expected FDA approval, were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Is a company liable when it sees a change coming in its largest source of income, but fails to predict the results? The complaint for this class action quotes an official for TrueCar, Inc. as saying that “we saw these coming. It wasn’t like we were blind to them.” The changes were changes to the USAA website that connected its members with car purchases that benefitted TrueCar. The changes resulted in fewer visits and fewer purchases for TrueCar, thus making TrueCar’s failure to disclose the changes violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the complaint alleges.

Celgene assured investors that it had three promising drugs, but the complaint for this securities class action claims that its overly optimistic statements about them were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the class period, it says, all of these drugs made disappointing showings, far from the company’s inflated predictions.

Overstock.com, Inc., an online retailer announces that it is going into digital currencies—and its stock rises more than 500% in five months. Is this a rise in real value? No, the complaint for this class action says, and alleges that the company was in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because it did not disclose all material information related to its initial coin offering (ICO) and other affairs. Specifically, its Medici unit was “hemorrhaging money” and the ICO might be illegal, if the coins were determined to be unregistered securities.

The complaint for this securities class action claims that Patterson Companies, Inc., colluded with its two main dental product competitors to keep prices high and maintain profit margins. Among other things, the companies agreed not to do business with Group Purchasing Organizations, which were intended to enable small practices to obtain bulk prices. This antitrust activity, the complaint says, was hidden from investors, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, artificially boosting Patterson’s sales figures and stock price until the truth emerged.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) forbids US companies from engaging in corruption, even outside the US. The complaint for this class action claims that General Cable Corporation paid bribes in six different countries, generating millions of dollars through means that were unsustainable and likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny. Because this is a securities complaint, the primary allegations are the company’s false statements, inflating its stock price, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Why did TG Therapeutics, Inc. abandon part of its new drug study? The complaint for this securities class action doesn’t answer that question, but it quotes an investor publication that is scathing in its evaluation of the effects. The complaint claims that the company’s positive statements about the drug’s trial during the class period did not hint at difficulties and were violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Still, the company announced that it was abandoning half of the trial, invalidating its SPA with the FDA, and cutting the number of patients enrolled by more than half.